• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Gays Profoundly “Suffering” in Twin Cities America, Advertise Against Target

Scott  W. Johnson at PowerLine reports on a  video being produced and circulated  by a group of gay fans suffering  early onset of  dementia to go along with their deep and profound suffering of discovering Target Corporation had donated some dollars to  Republican gubernatorial candidate, Tom Emmer. 

Some elderly appearing child  named Randi Reitan is the actress involved in the video attack on Target.   She purchased $226 of goods all fitting into her pushcart, and apparently during her aisle searches for more merchandise to return,  discovered the Target gift to a Republican,  her perceived  enemy of all things gay, with no things being mentioned as evidence.

Randi is suffering….and so ABC and CBS picked up her pain.

The article at PoweLine:  ………..”Target and a few other Minnesota-based companies have contributed to Minnesota Forward, a PAC running ads in support of the campaign of Republican Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. These companies fear the aggravation of Minnesota’s already difficult business climate if a Democratic governor is elected to join forces with a Democratic legislature. We haven’t elected a Democratic governor in Minnesota since 1986. He left office in 1990, a generation ago. If given the opportunity, Democrats will do some serious damage in Minnesota.

Democrats have struck back at Target by serving up the useful tools among the GLBT community. They have orchestrated a campaign against Target, allegedly because of Emmer’s (unspecified) “anti-gay” positions. So far as I can tell, Emmer’s opposition to gay marriage is the hook for the allegation against Emmer. On gay marriage, Emmer has staked out a position that puts him arm in arm with President Obama.

The boycott campaign against Target is a pretext. Its only authentic element is its intent to intimidate Target from straying off the party line.

Randi Reitan is an interesting case in point. She is the star of a video  in which she purchases $226 of merchandise at Target, then calls a manager to return the goods because of Target’s support of an “anti-gay” candidate and cuts up her Target charge card. Ms. Retian works herself up into a productive emotional lather professing her love for her family, under assault by Target. “As a mom,” Ms. Reitan asserts, “I had to do this one person protest.” Why is that? “My youngest son is gay, and I love him more than anything I could ever buy at Target.” I guess that makes her special.

The melodramatic Ms. Reitan posted the video at Huffington Post. What a great idea for a story! In short order she and the video were featured both in ABC’s and CBS’s reports on the Target flap.

Comment:  Question:  Which  zealots of kAmerica’s two major religions  practice  and encourage   censorship and boycott in America as a common  political weapon against people it hates or disagrees with?  

          a)  American Christians?………….      or   ………..   b) American Marxists?



MiniLeak Reveals Private Manning of Wikileak Scandal Is Gay.

……but why is the American press, that is the leftwing press, suppressing the information that the suspect in the WikiLeak scandal is gay?   Why the censorship?  Are there so many nervous  gays in American mass media that they edit out such newsworthy information?  Or is it built into the leftwing mindset to propagandize Soviet style one party press?  

Why did the leftwing media censor the fact that the Fort Hood hood who murdered 13 and maimed many others  was a Muslim fanatic both before, during,  and after the incident?  It was the reason for the incident.

Why does this mainstream institution censor America’s news to fit a leftwing agenda?

The following article comes from John Hinderaker at PowerLine….

“Pfc. Bradley Manning is the only suspect in the Wikileaks scandal that may have endangered both American soldiers in Afghanistan and their Afghan allies. He is now in custody awaiting court martial. Manning worked in intelligence and was stationed for a time outside Baghdad. I have no insight into whether Private Manning is guilty or not; presumably the facts will come out in his court martial. I am struck, however, by the lack of curiosity the American press has shown about Private Manning.

Manning’s mother is British. She married an American and lived in the U.S. for some years; Bradley was born here. His parents divorced and she brought him back to Wales in 2001. The Telegraph took the trouble of interviewing some of Manning’s friends and family members in the U.K., and checking out his Facebook page. The results are interesting.

First, Private Manning is openly homosexual. Did you know that? I didn’t; if the fact has been reported in the American press, I’ve missed it. Moreover, Manning was an activist who demonstrated against Congress’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. His Facebook includes a photo of him at a gay rights rally, holding a sign demanding equality on “the battlefield.” Further, he has posted anti-military comments on his Facebook page. An uncle describes him as “an introverted kid who loved computers and was fired up politically.” That tantalizing reference is left hanging. Whether he was fired up about something other than gay rights remains unknown, for the moment.

These are facts that would no doubt be of interest to American readers, yet, as so often happens, our reporters and editors appear to be engaged in a policy of collective discretion. Imagine, though, if Manning had been a tea partier, if he had been photographed holding an anti-government sign at a tea party rally, and if friends described him as being “fired up” about conservative politics. Do you think those facts would be prominently featured in the media narrative about the leaks.”

Are Democrats “Toast” in November?

Mark McKinnon at the Daily Beast, writes “Ten More Reasons Dems Are Toast”.

 On Friday night’s CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) found a new critic: President Obama. Obama said he finds the ethics charges against Rangel “very troubling” and added that he hopes the 20-term lawmaker will step down from office with his dignity intact. “He’s somebody who’s at the end of his career,” said Obama. “I’m sure that what he wants is to be able to end his career with dignity. And my hope is that it happens.”

“With Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), the once all-powerful Ways and Means Committee chairman, facing 13 ethics charges, I expect a press release shortly from Democratic leadership blaming President George W. Bush for Rangel’s problems. Democrats have blamed Bush for everything else.

Unlike most of my GOP brethren, I actually like President Barack Obama. I don’t recoil when I see him on television. While I don’t agree with much of what he and his administration are doing, I don’t wake up every morning hoping for him to fail. Presidential leadership requires taking responsibility, and the extent to which Obama and the Democrats—almost two years in—are hooked like crack addicts on blaming Bush for all their woes does drive me crazy.

Folks in the real world don’t blame Bush for decisions made by Democrats—in control of the House, Senate, and White House—in the last two years.

Voters are more responsible and realistic. They have moved on. On July 27, 2010, some 553 days after Obama’s inauguration, political history changed. The Washington Times ran an article under the headline “Obama’s base quits blaming Bush.”

What are Democrats gonna do now?

Life inside the Beltway bubble dulls your thinking. Here in the real world, paychecks and pocketbook issues matter most. Yet Nancy Pelosi is peddling posh designer totes and Harry Reid is blithely denying the fiscal insolvency of Social Security.

History was made two years ago when Obama was elected with 53 percent of the vote, more than any Democratic president except Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson. Now, his approval rating mirrors the public’s spiraling pessimism on the economy.

Voters are increasingly losing confidence in the president’s ability to lead. And desperate times call for desperate measures.

Like the distracting patter of an old stage magician meant to mask a sleight of hand, Democrats gleefully announce that their “brilliant” theme for the August recess and the 2010 campaign season is … “Blame Bush.”

Well, Democrats “can spin, they can sing, they can dance naked in the streets saying it’s about Bush, but he’s not on the ballot this year,” responds Rep. Greg Walden (R -OR).

Voters know whose hands are at the helm now. And with the elections less than 100 days away, here are the 10 telling signs that blaming bad times on Bush is not a winning strategy:

1. Red regions are gaining; blue are bleeding. Folks are fleeing stricken states in search of jobs. Based on these population changes, eight states in the more conservative South and West are projected to gain one or more U.S. House seats. With a probable gain of three or four seats, the biggest winner is Texas—not surprising, with its continuing record job growth. Ten states, mostly in the more liberal Northeast, will likely lose one House seat or more.

2. Republicans are pulling ahead in U.S. House races. With a projected gain of more than 40 House seats in November, Republican candidates also have the financial lead in most of the 15 competitive races in which Democratic incumbents aren’t running. Republicans only need a net gain of 39 seats to take the “damn gavel” away from Speaker Pelosi.

3. Toss-ups are turning red in the U.S. Senate. The GOP is leading or tied in eight Senate races for seats now held by Democrats, and is ahead in all Republican-held districts. More toss-up states on the map are leaning Republican. And the National Republican Senatorial Committee predicts a change in control of the Senate is now possible in just two election cycles.

4. Republicans are winning governorships. Thirty-seven governorships are being contested in November. Democrats are defending 19; Republicans 18. Of the 23 races without incumbents, thanks to term limits and voluntary—or involuntary—retirements, at least seven of these open states are already safe bets to switch to GOP control: Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Add a promising Colorado, New Mexico, and Wisconsin, a possible Illinois, and retention of incumbencies, and Republicans take control of the majority of governorships. The Republican Governors Association has a record $40 million cash on hand to invest in these races and to promote its national “Remember November.”

5. Republicans are winning state legislatures. Eighty-three percent of all state legislative seats are on the line in November. These local races can change the game on the national level. In most states, the legislative chambers, along with the governor, direct where congressional district lines are redrawn. In states like Pennsylvania, Republicans only need to pick up three seats to bring about a change in control. A Republican resurgence nationwide led by the Republican State Leadership Committee will give the GOP sole redistricting authority in more than 160 U.S. House districts, nearly six times more than their Democratic counterparts.

6. Republicans are winning on the issues. Voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on nine out of 10 key issues, including the all important economy. And the number of voters who view taxes as very important has jumped to its highest level ever. Here, Republicans already hold the edge on trust, 53 to 36 percent. Although overall awareness of the coming tax increases is low, already 55 percent of voters in 12 swing states, including 57 percent of independents, say they are less likely to vote for Democratic congressional candidates if next year’s scheduled tax increases are not stopped or delayed.

7. Democrats are losing black and Hispanic support. Only 43 percent of Hispanics, a key Democratic voting bloc, are satisfied with Obama’s performance, with the economy a major concern. Another 32 percent are undecided, while 21 percent say he’s done a poor job. And Gallup shows Obama’s job approval rating at 85 percent among black Americans, down from 94 percent in March and at the lowest ever as president.

8. Democrats are losing men, women, whites, and independents. Large numbers of whites, men, and independents have given up on Obama since his election. Support among whites dropped from 51 percent in July 2009 to 37 percent in July 2010, from 52 percent to 38 percent among independents, and from 54 percent to 39 percent among male voters overall. And while Obama averaged 59 percent approval among women in 2009, that number is now down 14 points to just 45 percent, threatening the Democrats’ traditional gender advantage.

9. Democrats are losing the young. Among millennials, who voted 2-to-1 for Obama, the president’s approval rating was 73 percent shortly after his January 2009 inauguration. That number plummeted to 57 percent a year later, and the president now trails a generic Republican among 18- to 34-year-olds.

10. Republican voters are energized; Democrats disinterested. Seventy-two percent of Republicans are certain they will vote in November, compared to 49 percent of Democrats. Democratic Party identification is down from the 8-point advantage in 2009 and the 12-point edge in 2008. And while moderates are peeling away, the more liberal in the party argue Democrats are not progressive enough.

These signs should be a wakeup call to Democrats. Folks in the real world aren’t dining with the editor of Vogue, or vacationing in Bar Harbor and Spain. They don’t see the Tea Party as elitists or the next enemy to fear. And they don’t blame Bush for decisions made by Democrats—in control of the House, Senate, and White House—in the last two years.

While Obama bailed on the Boy Scouts this week, choosing instead to visit with the ladies of The View, voters are taking a distinctly different, realistic, and frustrated view of the political landscape.

Though they once looked to this new kind of president with hope for change, they now know there is no easy fix, or easy blame. They see November coming. Bush is not on their ballot. And they know dancing naked in the streets and bashing Bush won’t help. 

Democratic leaders need to look in the mirror when placing blame: The naked truth is there.”

As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono.

What Passes for Black Wisdom at the New York Times

A New York Times reporter, Charles M. Blow wrote the following article “Obama’s Race War,” published yesterday.  The article could have been written by Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, or any number of the nameless of the Times opinion page.

Regardless of race, they speak and write as one, just as the folks at Pravda and Isvestia in the good old days of  Soviet Marxism.   There is a one party line at the New York Times.   The token foreigner who claims his name is mild, sweet David Brooks, whose opinions are cautious, shy and never dangerous.

It is my experience as a one time teacher and person old enough to know some facts before the Civil rights movement and who has followed American political and sports news and events religiously since Minnesota defeated Nebraska 61-7 in football  in 1945 and Truman beat Dewey in  the political version in 1948.

I am also old enough to have lived at a time before  our American black population became  essentially the race of  the country’s violent street criminal…..before the American black   began his posturings as a bully, and developed its culture contempuous of truth and knowledge…..a culture without fathers, a culture of corrupt leaders, both white and black.

Mr. Blow writes:       “Mature commentary on the subject has descended into tribal tirades, hypersensitive defenses and rapid-fire finger-pointing. The very definition of the word seems under assault, being bent and twisted back on itself and stretched and pulled beyond recognition.

Many on the left have taken an absolutist stance, that the anti-Obama sentiment reeks of racism and denial only served to confirm guilt. Many on the right feel as though they have been convicted without proof — that tossing “racism” their way is itself racist.

The “racists crying racism” meme is being pushed hard, on multiple fronts, all centered around the president.

After the N.A.A.C.P. asked the Tea Party “to condemn extremist elements” within its ranks, the right went on a witch hunt for black racists in the N.A.A.C.P. Not finding any, it created one. Andrew Breitbart presents: “The Sherrod Charade.”

Journalism is being tarred with the sins of some on JournoList, a now defunct listserv through which a handful of people wrote heretical things like the possibility of calling conservatives racist to divert attention from Obama’s connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.

This was hardly a vast left-wing conspiracy, but it fed the right’s defensive narrative that the word “racism” has become a weapon — not the shot of a rifle carefully aimed at a clear target, but a shotgun blast sprayed wide and loose at all things anti-Obama.

There’s also the charge that the president is protecting the New Black Panthers from voter intimidation charges. This nonstory has been knocked down more times than a blind boxer, but the right keeps pushing it.

And then there’s Glenn Beck. He’s on a crusade to convince the lemmings of Foxland that President Obama is governing under the principles of Black Liberation Theology, a “grave perversion” of Christianity in which “minorities are saved in the sense that white people constantly confess and repent of being racist and meet the economic demands of minorities via the redistribution of wealth as a consequence of, in some form or another, reparations.” What? Oh, Glenn.

I have to say, I don’t know how these Fox viewers do it. Listening to a Beck argument is like living in an M.C. Escher drawing — fantastical illusions that defy logic and strain the brain.

Blacks, stunned by this new topsy-turvy world of racial politics, continue to rally around Obama. In opinion polls, they consistently rate Obama’s performance and policies highly, I suspect as much out of solidarity as conviction.

Whether the president likes it or not, he’s the nexus of this debate. I, for one, think that he should stand up and redirect it from the negative to the noble. There will be some grumbling to be sure, but there already is.

It’s your choice, Mr. President. I say stand up — for America, for common humanity, for civil discourse. To paraphrase the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., they can’t ride your back unless it’s bent.”

Comment:  Here we have a high school student cheering for his class president.   He opens his article suggesting his impartiality….claiming mature commentary  has collapsed into the mud of tribalism, but quickly moves out of his pretentions he is an unbribed referee. 

I have followed Andrew Breitbart’s involvement counteracting the racist attacks a handful of black Congressmen made against the Tea Party gatherings back in March at the capital opposing Obama’s drive to pass goverrnment run American health industry. 

One claimed the word, “nigger” was used “twenty five times” as a assault against this defenseless and innocent black who happened to be walking through the organized protest. 

Fortunately, thanks to modern invention, the entire hike through the tea party people was caught not by just one video, but by many…….No such words were uttered.

The black congressman was lying……and there were a handful of other similar inferences by other black Congressmen using often used weapon over the last generation or two,  to cause grief and harm to folks not of black “persuasion”.

Many Americans have been programmed to believe any statement of criticism of matters “black” is anti black racism.   It is an especially valued and strongly believed idea among those blacks living in America’s  inner city plantation culture…..one party, one rule, one people, one truth.

Mr. Blow makes no mention of such recent history.  He makes no reference to an Obama claim that he would rise above race to bring Change to America.   Mr. Blow makes no mention of any racist comments and activities among the cheering delegates at the recent NAACP convention which, he suggests, simply requested ” to condemn extremist elements” in its ranks.  

Wow….writing about the pot calling the kettle black…wow….!

Mr. Blow infers  that out of this kind request by the NAACP, the tribal racism has begun…..He then envisions   a M. C. Escher drawing to remind readers he went to college.

Mr. Blow then moves on to Glenn Beck and his lemmings at Fox.  He doesn’t think much of Mr. Beck, a white man.  Obama is “the nexus of this debate”, writes Blow…..and cheers, “It’s your choice, Mr. President. I say, ” stand up — for America, for common humanity, for civil discourse!”

Which Obama will stand up for which civil discourse?  The one who fired Ms. Sherrod, or the one who suggested she be returned to government work?

Which Obama will stand up for which civil discourse?   The one who heard Reverend Wright’s “Goddamn America” sermons, or the one who, after 22 years a member of the institution, had no idea such words were expressed.

Which Obama will stand up for which civil discourse who claimed that his health bill would add over 30 million to the insured ranks, yet the cost of health care would drop……even though every other living, thinking, and writing human knew he was “Whistling Dixie”…we’ll write.

Readers…complete your own lists of  the stand up Obama.  See what you come up with.

The Obama and Democrat Party War Against America

The Recovery Loses Momentum, the Wall Street Journal headline announced this morning.  

To a small business businessman as I, I never recognized any momentum at all.   Everthing has been sliding down hill.   We have one half the working staff we had a year and a half ago….and we are struggling.   Worse yet, the nation is struggling, at least the nation outside of Washington where the enemies of America play.

I do not like Mr. Obama .  It is his character.  He cannot sustain truth telling.   It has nothing to do with the color of his skin, sorry Leftists.  I view him as white to look at, but black in the sense he has been crippled by the black culture he had chosen to emulate as a young man which seems to guide his actions.  He has the habits of an “occupied” person….a person trained to not trust others especially those who seem confortable in the occupier’s system.

“Lie to them before they lie to you”……is the occupied person’s motto.

I believe Mr. Obama doesn’t  have much ability to tell the truth.  The proof is open for all to see or hear, if they would bother to review closely his speeches and his interviews.   He is a con-artist selling his Marxist ideas.  Yet, I certainly admit that I do not know if he knows who he is on this front.  Does he truly know he repeats contradiction after contradiction just to sell his religion, Marxism?  

And he was a member of Jeremiah Wright’s “Goddamn America” church, and claimed he had no idea such words were coming from his “father figure’s” Sunday mouth for 22 years.

Shouldn’t that LIE had been enough to discredit a politician pretending to be honorable?

But, Mr. Obama had chosen to become a black man.  He’d have been a moron not to.  He wouldn’t have had a chance to become famous if he hadn’t made that choice.

What else qualified him for office? 

His party has worked its way into an evil corner.  It thrives selling  racism, homophobia, sexism, antisemitism (until recently when Obama has become a playmate with the Muslim world) and antiLatino, by throwing these fiery hates in all forms of propaganda to smear its opponents.

The Democrat Party of this moment offers nothing but its devotion to establish State Socialism to micromanage the lives of American citizens.   It is the inevitable conclusion of any political movement which is based on buying citizen (and non-citizen) votes  with special financial and social favors.    This party has corrupted the American voting system, the country’s  economy, its universities and schools, most of its mainline churches, its communications and entertainment industries, and has joined our “enemy” Mexico in its battle over the borderwars against THE AMERICAN STATE OF ARIZONA and, in general against the very nation this Barack Obama has promised to defend.

Ever since the vulgar and violent  anti-American uprising of its Vietnam war protest years, when the Racist Black movements rose to their height of violence, the Democrat Party has used racism as a hate tool against its white fellow Americans.  Since its propagandists became the nation’s teachers, ministers, priests, CEOs, lawyers, judges, artists with or without abilities, journalists, many bankers, druggie operators, Black Panthers and union members, it would be easy to pass the word along.  Its message and language were controlled by the censorship of the tyranny  of  “Political Correctness”, the language laws of a dictatorship to punish thought and speech before anyone could think or speak or after….both are expected to keep the population quiet.

Republicans, too, have been infected.   They became observors and in some cases collaborators.  They’ve been  leaderless, stunned and confused.  Except for the open window of fresh air from Ronald Reagan.    He was an individual attempting to hold back the sea of socialist Marxism.

Republican politicians have graduated from the same universities and schools with the same Marxist message as their Democrat brethren.  They had to hide their views if they had any at all which resembled something from traditional American values.   And they still do. 

The modern American has an impoverished vocabulary and an impoverished bank of knowledge from which to take measure from what is said and done by its leadership.  A century ago an American was a farmer, a laborer or a small business business man.    None had insurance guaranteeing anything.  They were aware of the risks of life and obeyed the rules of religion which guided them and strengthened them……All have been diminished in their station. 

Socialism and Barack Obama create the perpetual child citizen….the obedient one……the drone.   Mr. Obama did not invent this disease.   He is its product.  

Someday with Marxism ever much more in control of  citizen life, 95% of the nation’s electorate will support Obama-like disdain for truth and democracy by reelecting Democrat Pary apparatchiki. 

The worker’s paradise at last…..when no one will have a care in the world.

The Dems Are Shredding the Constitution

“What ever happened to the Constitution?”, Scott W. Johnson asks in his article at PowerLine.  To quote, he writes:

“If Obamacare is constitutional, we have experienced the dissolution of limited government. If the government can, among other things, command citizens to purchase health insurance of a prescribed shape and size, you can bet it will be using this power in a variety of (other) unpleasing ways in the future. It’s just a matter of time. As the Tea Party folks recognize, it’s time to take a stand.

Yet there has been remarkably little discussion of the constitutional revision involved here. One wonders if we truly understand or appreciate limited government and the Constitution anymore. They are at best an afterthought in the debate over Obamacare.

In May National Review published Charles Kesler’s superb essay “The Constitution, at last.” A far more appropriate title for the essay would have been “Whatever happened to the Constitution?” That having been said, I want to bring this essay to your attention in connection with my own post “An old argument revisited.” ”

Comment:  If Obamacare is constitutional, the Constitution has been tremendously devaluated.  Obamagovernment can just about force anything upon its citizens even worse than his monotonous speechifying.

The VAIN Barack Obama

The following article was written by Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics:

“When Barack Obama burst onto the national scene in early 2007, I was fascinated by his public relations strategy. As a candidate, his facility with the arts of public communication vastly outstripped John McCain’s (and Hillary Clinton’s, for that matter), and frankly has few rivals in the history of electioneering.

Yet my fascination turned to consternation some time after Mr. Obama’s inauguration. I had expected him to modify substantially his strategy in light of the august office he now inhabits. As early as February, 2009 – I fretted about the President’s continued courting of celebrity. Since those early days, it has become frustratingly apparent that his Administration’s way of dealing with the public is largely an extension of his campaign’s.

Neither of them is wholly “rational.” You cannot explain how Obama the candidate or Obama the President communicates with the public by assuming that it is all a product of strategic thinking. A strategy implies a goal and a credible explanation as to why a particular action will help accomplish that goal. Too many of his activities are inexplicable by this language of strategic rationality. Recall the Summer of 2008 when candidate Obama seemed particularly weightless: the “Seal of Obama,” his European tour, his grandiose convention stage. There was something more to each of these than the simple determination that they were the best ways to spread his message to the masses.

Ditto his choice to appear on The View. Celebrities go on The View. Movie stars and rock stars. Not sitting Presidents of the United States. You cannot explain his decision to appear there without acknowledging that it was, at least in part, about the thrill he gets from being treated like a movie star. This is not merely about public communication. This is also about vanity.

Presidents occasionally make appearances on airy shows – George W. Bush, for instance, had a brief video spot on Deal or No Deal during which he thanked a contestant for his service as a soldier in Iraq. And of course candidates for the Presidency often make appearances on lighter programs like Oprah or The Tonight Show. Yet there are obviously big differences between President Obama and his predecessors, and it cannot be chalked up entirely to getting the message out.

Excessive vanity is common among Presidents. You must be vain to presume that you, and nobody else, should be the next President of the United States. Some Presidents are able to manage their vanity so that it is an asset. For other Presidents, vanity is a severe political handicap. Obama is falling into the latter category, which is somewhat of a surprise. His vanity surely helped generate the “audacity” he needed to snatch the Democratic party nomination from Hillary Clinton. Yet since he accomplished that amazing feat, his vanity has gone from a plus to a minus, creating two political problems for him that can be seen in the above clip.

First, it induces him to do silly things like appear on The View. Such behavior does not help advance his message at all. The audience for this trite program is far too small to induce opinion changes in the mass public. And more importantly, it diminishes the President’s stature. His office is so important that he should not be appearing on programs such as this.

Second, it strips him of a sense of self-awareness. This President, who was recently ranked as the eighth most intelligent President of all time (just behind of John Adams, co-author of the Declaration of Independence, and four spots ahead of George Washington, who successfully repelled an invasion by the greatest military power the world had ever seen to that point), seems unaware of the concept of irony. There is no other way to explain why he would say this after having become the first President to engage in a permanent electoral campaign:

We shouldn’t be campaigning all the time. There is a time to campaign and there is a time to govern. What we’ve tried to do over the last 20 months is to govern. On health care or financial reform, right now we have a big debate about how to get small businesses more credit because they generate the jobs. When you feel as if every single initiative that we’re doing is subject to Washington politics instead of is this good for the country, that can be frustrating.

The fact that he uttered these words on The View, a show politicians only frequent when they are desperately trolling for votes, makes it all the more remarkable.

President Obama’s vanity is fast becoming a problem for the Democratic Party. Messages cannot be delivered without messengers. Ideas require expounders. Even if the former are sound, the latter can make them sound foolish. Obama ran for and won that party’s nomination based upon the claim that he could sell the party’s ideas to Americans who regularly hesitate to pull the lever for Democrats. He is failing to do that, and his vanity is one reason why.

Democrats have reasons for great anxiety as we approach the 112th Congress and the next presidential campaign. The Republicans, sent packing after the 2006 and 2008 elections, are set to return to the District of Columbia in force next January. On top of that, unemployment is supposed to remain stubborningly high and the deficit will surely remain at unsustainable levels. All of this will make for difficult waters for Democratic party leaders to navigate. The party is going to need crafty, deft leadership if it hopes to avoid ceding further ground to the Republicans. I have my doubts that this President – overcome as he seems to be with self-adoration – can supply it. I’m guessing that many Democrats are starting to have similar worries.”

Comment:    I watched Mr. Obama’s performance during his campaign against Hillary.  I thought he made Hillary almost appealing, considering all her lies, contrivances, and husband, Bill Jefferson….He was a robot; a robot very, very pleased with himself. 

After all, Mr. Obama had gone to graduate school.   Mr. Obama has gone to Princeton and Harvard.  Even at the University of Minnesota graduate school students in the social sciences are often robotic in their overwhelming love of themselves.

When Mr. Obama lies, as he does so frequently,  he is at the best of his memorized prose.